↓ Skip to main content

Focus article: report of the NIH task force on research standards for chronic low back pain

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
Title
Focus article: report of the NIH task force on research standards for chronic low back pain
Published in
European Spine Journal, September 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00586-014-3540-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard A. Deyo, Samuel F. Dworkin, Dagmar Amtmann, Gunnar Andersson, David Borenstein, Eugene Carragee, John Carrino, Roger Chou, Karon Cook, Anthony DeLitto, Christine Goertz, Partap Khalsa, John Loeser, Sean Mackey, James Panagis, James Rainville, Tor Tosteson, Dennis Turk, Michael Von Korff, Debra K. Weiner

Abstract

Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed non-specific and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. Therefore, NIH Pain Consortium charged a Research Task Force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimum dataset to describe research participants (drawing heavily on the PROMIS methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals. The RTF believes that these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of chronic low back pain. We expect that the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document and undergo continual improvement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Unknown 67 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Other 6 9%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 17 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 39%
Psychology 5 7%
Neuroscience 4 6%
Engineering 3 4%
Sports and Recreations 3 4%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 21 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 December 2014.
All research outputs
#15,313,289
of 22,775,504 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#2,015
of 4,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,116
of 243,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#24
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,775,504 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,616 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 243,373 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 113 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.